To be certain, there is much to agree with–at least in spirit–in the bill. With a path to citizenship for America’s estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants and, at the same time, billions to shore up border security, the bill seemed designed to please everybody. Except, of course, binational same-sex couples who found themselves excluded from the package deal.

The bill has been around since 2000 and would simply, and markedly, skirt the issue of federal marriage recognition in order to allow green-card privilege for state married same-sex couples, or as the bill puts it “permanent partners,” in the same way heterosexuals currently enjoy automatic coverage.

Given that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage, as reflected in a number of national polls, and the very salient qualifier that this would not amount to a federal recognition of same-sex marriage rights but rather a recognition of eligibility based on a state-recognized relationship (marriage, civil unions), there should be nothing controversial here, right? Wrong.

Sen. Marco Rubio of (R-FL), a driving force behind immigration reform in the Senate, is quoted as saying that he’d pull his support and that “if that issue is injected into this bill, this bill will fail. It will not have the support. It will not have my support.”

“There’s a reason this language wasn’t included in the Gang of Eight’s bill: It’s a deal-breaker for most Republicans. Finding consensus on immigration legislation is tough enough without opening the bill up to social issues.”

The other two prominent Republican voices, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John McCain of Arizona, are both known for their anti-gay marriage views and so, though there’s been no official word, it is likely they too have at least some reservations.

However, is it true? Would the Uniting American Families Act really spell doom for immigration reform? Senator Leahy doesn’t think so.

“It’s not going to kill the bill,” Leahy is quoted as saying by Politico while Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill) and Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), key negotiators in the Judiciary Committee, have said they would support the amendment if offered.

It is also by no means unthinkable that Republican moderates may allow the amendment. Past support has included Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Reps. Richard Hanna (R-N.Y.) and Charles Dent (R-Pa.) who have co-sponsored Senate and House versions of the Uniting American Families Act and together introduced those bills into Congress in February.

But others warn that Democratic lawmakers throwing down the gauntlet on this issue could endanger the wider immigration reform debate at a time when, it seems, true bipartisanship may in fact be possible, at least in the Senate.

Of course, there could be one other way to fix the problem same-sex couples face that would bypass Congress altogether.

Were the Supreme Court of the United States to strike down the federal Defense of Marriage Act this summer in the case Windsor v. United States, and therein strike the language that prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex couples as married spouses, binational same-sex couples could be able to apply for a greencard through marriage eligibility in the same way as their heterosexual counterparts.

Theres a reason this language wasnt included in the Gang of Eights bill: Its a deal-breaker for most Republicans. Finding consensus on immigration legislation is tough enough without opening the bill up to social issues.

The Republican/Teabaggers will scuttle the bill with or without the addition because they are nothing but obstructionists who can't get past their own discriminatory ideology. As far as I am concerned, if the Republican/Teabaggers kill the bill containing language consistent with the Uniting American Families Act, they are discriminating against one particular class of American citizen. As such, they should be taken to task on that.

These asshat Republican/Teabaggers need to be issued into history with the next available election.

If Obama would keep to his promise to support a gay marriage act, this would not even be a question.How can you predict how the GOP will react in initiating an immigration act ? If there was legislation as promised, there would be no reason to speculate.

The GOP is slipping into a reactionary mode where they fear change because it will erode their power. You see this in patients with advancing dementia; the pain of loss and fear of what could happen next causes them to strike out, even against those closest to them. The GOP truly is becoming mentally challenged, and ineffective. I wonder what will replace them? Because we still need conservatives to balance the political field; it's the way our country works; a balance of tensions. We need healthy conservatism. And the GOP needs to retire.

if a bill benefits the poor, the GOP crushes it. If a bill benefits a religious minority, they destroy it. If it benefits sexual minorities (LGBTI), they reject it most of all. They just want to hinder peace and freedom, just to keep the wealthy straight christians in charge.